So they didn't correlate the IMU data with ranging radar or even barometric altitude information so as to avoid this?

I know weight and volume are at a premium on such craft but a barometric sensor (even one capable of operating in Mars's rarefied atmosphere, is the size of a thumbnail and weighs just a fraction of a gram.

Instead of storing a music track (or movie) as an MP3 or MP4 file on a single server, why not break it up into a bitstream in chunks of less than a byte and distribute it amongst a large number of servers. Each file on each server would then appear to be nothing but a random bitstream bearing no relation to the actual original work.

To access/download said movie/music, all you need is the right piece of software and the key which activates a function that downloads the bitstream fragments from the relevant servers and re-orders them into the original track.

This way, no server will have a copy of the copyright-infringing material that could be recognised as the offending work so surely could not be the subject of a copyright violation.

Since the servers would be useless without the key and the key would be useless without the servers -- neither part constitutes the copyrighted work.

Yeah, it's a form of distributed encryption -- but how do copyright holders issue a takedown notice for something that is clearly not their copyrighted content?

Just a thought. Probably already been done because there's nothing new in the universe.

If I was Mr Trump, I'd be gravely concerned that those who have most to lose from this victory might seek out a grassy knoll somewhere to "put things right". From what I read of history, it would not be "unprecedented" -- which would then leave the USA "unpresidented". People who aspire to power often don't take failure very well.

Here in New Zealand Samsung did a huge recall of washing machines that were burning houses down. Apparently, when used with a full load, the machines would splash water on the electrics and the resulting current flow could precipitate a fire in which the plastic parts of the machine (top and cover) went up in flames -- setting fire to anything else that was nearby (such as your house).

Samsung delivered my replacement machine this week (after I had to wait a hell of a long time) and I asked them if I got a free Note 7 phone to go with it -- since it's Guy Fawkes this weekend and sometimes those bonfires are hard to get lit after a spring shower.

When your own government acts like terrorists -- you know the terrorists have won.

The terrorists have very effectively smashed the US Constitution and removed a huge swathe of "freedoms" that were previously enjoyed by Western nations. They did not do this alone -- the governments of those nations were complicit with the terrorists' objectives by bending to the pressure.

As Midnight OIl said: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Sadly, Western governments have opted to strip their peoples of the freedoms they're (allegedly) trying to protect, in promise of security.

It's not the registration that is the problem -- it's the contract that the FAA forces upon you when you register.

Section 336 clearly states that the FAA may make no new rules to control model aircraft so they've been clever as a fox. The FAA has no way to make new rules to control these craft so they conjured up a contract and called it "registration". In order to register you must agree to the terms of the contract which include restrictions that were not previously present -- such as not flying over 400 feet AGL etc. Once you've registered, you have agreed to that contract and breaching it (such as flying over 400 feet AGL) exposes you to legal action for breach of the contract. So, the FAA have created new rules by stealth in the form of this binding contract.

It's a crock and has been done solely to sidestep the decree of Congress. Nasty work!

Even nastier is how little has been done to highlight this fact. Thank goodness *someone* is taking them to court over this dirty dealing.

The problem is that the FAA (and other regulators around the world) have chosen to penalize the genuine hobbyist for the acts of the idiots. This is totally uncalled for and unfair. Imagine if, every time some dick-head decided to break the speed limit, *every* responsible driver was penalised as a result. That's the situation we have here with drones.

The regulators can't even define what a drone is accurately or consistently so instead of making even the smallest effort (such as differentiating between craft that have onboard GPS and an autonomous or semi-autonomous capability -- such as auto-land, return to home etc) they consider everything that flies without a pilot to be a drone.

This is just laziness on the part of regulators and gross unfairness towards the responsible members of a hobby that has for decades proven itself to be safe and family-friendly.

Ultimately, we have a bunch of suits who fly desks telling the rest of us (some like myself who've been flying model aircraft for over 50 years) under threat of severe fines and/or imprisonment, what's safe and what's not. Ludicrous!

I've canceled my Netflix and gone back to torrents. It was the total lack of screeners on Netflix that turned be off. Hell, screeners are great -- it's just like being at the theater. If I can't see the heads of those in front and hear cellphones ringing two rows back then it's not a true movie experience.

The only problem is the need to occasionally reflash the microSD because something happens to the database and it screws up 1Channel, Exodus, SALTS and all the other video plug-ins. Bit of a pain in the backside but worth the irritation when you consider the results you get.

Yet, strangely enough, Google allows its YouTube service to only tacitly deal with copyright infringements through that service.

This is why Swift, McCartney and a bunch of other recording artists are pushing for a change to the DMCA that would prevent YouTube from effectively leveraging their music for profit without adequate compensation:

http://fortune.com/2016/06/20/taylor-swift-youtube/

Google only censors that which does not stand to make it a profit.

What I find interesting is that when you file a copyright violation complaint with YouTube (when, for instance, someone has uploaded one of your own videos to their own channel and monetized it), they often take their own sweet time to take it down. In fact, there are channels on YT that consist of nothing more than content leached from other channels. As someone who earns his living from his YT channels, I find it annoying that sometimes you have to flle a dozen or more notices against another channel carrying your videos, before YT will act.

What I also want to know is...

Where does the ad-revenue generated by those unauthorised uploads/views go?

I bet that YT doesn't refund the money to the advertisers -- but t hey sure as hell don't pass it on to the original owner of the copyright.

You can be pretty sure that this money goes straight into Google's pockets -- which explains why they're not at all interested in acting quickly to take-down such channels -- because its revenue without the need to share.